Ferance v. Roemer

• Decision Date: 21 September 1886
• Citation: 66 Wis. 445,29 N.W. 283
• Parties: FERANCE v. ROEMER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

66 Wis. 445

29 N.W. 283

FERANCE

v.ROEMER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

September 21, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Outagamie county.

February 25, 1880, James Smith owned the land in question. The plaintiff claimed that on that day, through one Charles L. Grandorff, as her agent, Smith orally agreed to convey to her the land, on payment of $400; that she paid $25 at the time, and thereupon went into the actual possession; that March 30, 1880, she paid $302.47 more; that July 19, 1880, Smith conveyed the land to the defendant Joseph Roemer, who took the conveyance knowing all the facts, and recorded his deed; that at that time Roemer and wife gave back to Smith a note and mortgage on the land for $75, for the purchase price; that Roemer had refused to convey the land to her upon her offering to pay the balance of the $400, and interest. Wherefore she prayed judgment that he so convey upon her making such payment. The defendants denied that the plaintiff ever made such agreement, or such payments, or that Grandorff acted as her agent, but claimed that Grandorff made the agreement in his own name, and for his own benefit, and made each of the two payments named for himself, and went into the actual possession, and procured the plaintiff to move onto the premises, and keep house for him, as he was an old man and had no family; that in consequence of a disagreement between him and the plaintiff and her children, and her refusal to vacate, he left and went to Europe; that in pursuance of an agreement with Grandorff, who was largely indebted to him for attorney's fees, Roemer procured the deed from Smith of July 19, 1880, and gave back the note and mortgage to protect and secure his own rights, and those of Grandorff, in good faith, and without any fraud; and that he held the same for the benefit of himself and in trust for Grandorff. The court found, as a matter of fact, that the claim of the plaintiff was not sustained by the evidence, but that the claim of the defendants was sustained by the evidence, and hence that defendants were entitled to the possession of the land for the purposes claimed, and that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed. Judgment was entered accordingly, from which the plaintiff brings this appeal.Collins & Pierce, for appellant, Mary L. Ferance.

Henry D. Ryan, for respondents, Joseph Roemer and others.

CASSODAY, J.

The findings of the court seem to be sustained by the evidence. The plaintiff...